Wells Fargo Advisors (formerly Wachovia/AG Edwards)

arch city · PostJun 22, 2007#1512007-06-22T18:36+00:00

jlblues wrote:As long as we are picking nits...demonstratably is not a word.

Then, on top of that, he gave Berkshire as a poor example to refute my comment of,

"You can't be a publicly-traded firm and have no size or profit goals."

But then he says,

"Yes. Basically his (Buffett/Berkshire) only goal is to get bigger."

Seems kinda of contradicting.

Yes, a firm can be publicly-traded and have a "no size, no profit" goals culture and put shareholders third on totem pole, but when the shareholders start to show you who you are really working for then you had better develop a strategy for building size and profit goals or they are going to sell you to the highest bidder - alas May, alas Edwards, alas McDonnell, alas A-B.

the central scrutinizer · PostJun 22, 2007#1522007-06-22T19:01+00:00

Arch City wrote:
jlblues wrote:As long as we are picking nits...demonstratably is not a word.

Then, on top of that, he gave Berkshire as a poor example to refute my comment of,

Is Berkshire a publicly traded company? Yes or no?

Arch City wrote:But then he says,

"Yes. Basically his (Buffett/Berkshire) only goal is to get bigger."

Seems kinda of contradicting.

Only to someone who goes through amazing contortions to avoid admitting they are wrong. Like you have done in this thread. Twice.

Arch City wrote:Yes, a firm can be publicly-traded and have a "no size, no profit" goals culture and put shareholders third on totem pole, but when the shareholders start to show you who you are really working for then you had better develop a strategy for building size and profit goals or they are going to sell you to the highest bidder - alas May, alas Edwards, alas McDonnell, alas A-B.

Mr. Buffett makes it quite clear every year that the Berkshire shareholders come first. Not third, as you state. He knows exactly who he is working for. I suspect if anyone tried to buy Berkshire (assuming anyone was large enough to do so), they would be roundly rejected.

jlblues · PostJun 22, 2007#1532007-06-22T19:11+00:00

I agree, publicly stating that your shareholders come third is never a good idea. Might be part of the reason why Ben has little involvement in the company these days.

And, yes, there does seem to be something about local companies that makes them unsustainable as independent organizations over the long term. Call it conservatism, lack of vision, a high level of risk aversion, old schoolism, or whatever. Many business leaders here seem to have a great deal of disdain for the way Wall Street governs how they do business these days. Note the number of large, privately-held companies in the region. How many times did analysts point out all the ways in which May Co. could cut costs and adjust their strategy into the Internet Age, and that the only way they would be able to survive given their current operations was through acquisitions? How long have they been saying that AG Edwards was a prime takeover target? The list goes on and on, Boatman's, Mercantile, Monsanto, Ralston-Purina...

Interestingly, there also seems to be a parallel between how they run their companies and the way they dictate to the community.

"Sit down and be quiet shareholders, we know what is best for you...now, I am announcing that my son will be taking over day-to-day operations..."

tb1000 · PostJun 22, 2007#1542007-06-22T19:20+00:00

Yes. Basically his only goal is to get bigger

Wrong.

His goal is to make investments that are going to maximize shareholder's returns. The way to do that is to make acquisitions, which in turn makes the company bigger. Since he makes long-term investments (never buys companies to make them super profitable so he can sell them) BRK will continue to grow and grow and grow.

arch city · PostJun 22, 2007#1552007-06-22T19:30+00:00

The Central Scrutinizer wrote:Is Berkshire a publicly traded company? Yes or no?

Posted 10/6/2006 10:26 AM

CHICAGO (AP) — The most expensive stock in the United States passed a unique plateau Thursday: The price for one Class A share of Warren Buffett's Berkshire Hathaway (BRKA) briefly topped $100,000.

Berkshire Hathaway shares are not only expensive, they are rare compared with those of other large, publicly traded companies. At the end of June, there were only 1.13 million shares of the more expensive Class A variety and 12.41 million Class B shares (BRKB) in existence.

Source

The Central Scrutinizer wrote:Only to someone who goes through amazing contortions to avoid admitting they are wrong. Like you have done in this thread. Twice.

Interesting. Well I think instead of trying to prove someone wrong, you need to comprehend a little more what was written.

The Central Scrutinizer wrote:Mr. Buffett makes it quite clear every year that the Berkshire shareholders come first. Not third, as you state. He knows exactly who he is working for. I suspect if anyone tried to buy Berkshire (assuming anyone was large enough to do so), they would be roundly rejected.

Umm. You are clearly aren't comprehending TCS. Did you read the article posted by MattnSTL? It was in that article that Ben III said that AGE's culture was to put its shareholders third. While noble in implementation, AGE failed to realize that shareholders come first, which I have said throughout this thread, mind you. This sell was all about the shareholders. AGE's culture apparently doomed it based on Ben III's assertions. Your comparison between AGE and Berkshire doesn't make sense. They are/were two different animals.

Dude, instead of trying to prove me wrong, read the article.

PostJun 22, 2007#1562007-06-22T19:32+00:00

jlblues wrote:I agree, publicly stating that your shareholders come third is never a good idea. Might be part of the reason why Ben has little involvement in the company these days.

And, yes, there does seem to be something about local companies that makes them unsustainable as independent organizations over the long term. Call it conservatism, lack of vision, a high level of risk aversion, old schoolism, or whatever. Many business leaders here seem to have a great deal of disdain for the way Wall Street governs how they do business these days. Note the number of large, privately-held companies in the region. How many times did analysts point out all the ways in which May Co. could cut costs and adjust their strategy into the Internet Age, and that the only way they would be able to survive given their current operations was through acquisitions? How long have they been saying that AG Edwards was a prime takeover target? The list goes on and on, Boatman's, Mercantile, Monsanto, Ralston-Purina...

Interestingly, there also seems to be a parallel between how they run their companies and the way they dictate to the community.

"Sit down and be quiet shareholders, we know what is best for you...now, I am announcing that my son will be taking over day-to-day operations..."

=D> =D>

Alex Ihnen · PostJun 22, 2007#1572007-06-22T19:33+00:00

:smt015

So AGE has a LOT of unused space they are currently paying for - a building near their campus, space at the Highlands near FP. It would probably be tempting/easy for Wach to dump these, but maybe they're attractive places to add jobs in StL. Does AGE have open space on their main campus? As I understand it, the extra space was used as significant portions of the main campus were renovated/built and employees were moved around the city a bit.

arch city · PostJun 22, 2007#1582007-06-22T19:38+00:00

jlblues wrote:I agree, publicly stating that your shareholders come third is never a good idea. Might be part of the reason why Ben has little involvement in the company these days.

And, yes, there does seem to be something about local companies that makes them unsustainable as independent organizations over the long term. Call it conservatism, lack of vision, a high level of risk aversion, old schoolism, or whatever. Many business leaders here seem to have a great deal of disdain for the way Wall Street governs how they do business these days. Note the number of large, privately-held companies in the region. How many times did analysts point out all the ways in which May Co. could cut costs and adjust their strategy into the Internet Age, and that the only way they would be able to survive given their current operations was through acquisitions? How long have they been saying that AG Edwards was a prime takeover target? The list goes on and on, Boatman's, Mercantile, Monsanto, Ralston-Purina...

Interestingly, there also seems to be a parallel between how they run their companies and the way they dictate to the community.

"Sit down and be quiet shareholders, we know what is best for you...now, I am announcing that my son will be taking over day-to-day operations..."

And you know what? A-B is on the bubble.

I know this is off topic, and if it strays too far, we might have to split it, but Cadbury Schweppes is about to unload Cadbury Schweppes USA, which makes Dr. Pepper, 7-Up (a former St. Louis company), Canada Dry, Crush etc.

A-B should strongly, I think, acquire Cadbury Schweppes USA once it is unloaded by Cadbury Schweppes. Why not become a beverage company instead of a just a beer/entertainment company?

the central scrutinizer · PostJun 22, 2007#1592007-06-22T21:57+00:00

TB1000 wrote:
Yes. Basically his only goal is to get bigger

Wrong.

His goal is to make investments that are going to maximize shareholder's returns. The way to do that is to make acquisitions, which in turn makes the company bigger. Since he makes long-term investments (never buys companies to make them super profitable so he can sell them) BRK will continue to grow and grow and grow.

Ummmmm.....how is that different than what I posted?

PostJun 22, 2007#1602007-06-22T22:04+00:00

Arch City wrote:
The Central Scrutinizer wrote:Is Berkshire a publicly traded company? Yes or no?

Posted 10/6/2006 10:26 AM

CHICAGO (AP) — The most expensive stock in the United States passed a unique plateau Thursday: The price for one Class A share of Warren Buffett's Berkshire Hathaway (BRKA) briefly topped $100,000.

Berkshire Hathaway shares are not only expensive, they are rare compared with those of other large, publicly traded companies. At the end of June, there were only 1.13 million shares of the more expensive Class A variety and 12.41 million Class B shares (BRKB) in existence.

Source

I'll take that as a yes. So you admit that you were wrong when you said:

"You can't be a publicly-traded firm and have no size or profit goals."

OK, now that I have corrected you...

Arch City wrote:
The Central Scrutinizer wrote:Only to someone who goes through amazing contortions to avoid admitting they are wrong. Like you have done in this thread. Twice.
Interesting. Well I think instead of trying to prove someone wrong, you need to comprehend a little more what was written.

Right back at you,

Arch City wrote:
The Central Scrutinizer wrote:Mr. Buffett makes it quite clear every year that the Berkshire shareholders come first. Not third, as you state. He knows exactly who he is working for. I suspect if anyone tried to buy Berkshire (assuming anyone was large enough to do so), they would be roundly rejected.
Umm. You are clearly aren't comprehending TCS. Did you read the article posted by MattnSTL? It was in that article that Ben III said that AGE's culture was to put its shareholders third. While noble in implementation, AGE failed to realize that shareholders come first, which I have said throughout this thread, mind you. This sell was all about the shareholders. AGE's culture apparently doomed it based on Ben III's assertions. Your comparison between AGE and Berkshire doesn't make sense. They are/were two different animals.

Dude, instead of trying to prove me wrong, read the article.

Dude, where was I comparing Berkshire and AGE? You were the only one doing that. Try to keep up.

Let's move on.

loftlover · PostJun 24, 2007#1612007-06-24T11:26+00:00

On a lighter note, not sure I like the sound of the "Wachovia Dome", but it rolls off the tongue better than the "Edward Jones Dome" ...

moorlander · PostJun 26, 2007#1622007-06-26T01:01+00:00

Top brokers offered big incentives by Wachovia

Top-producing brokers at A.G. Edwards are in line for substantial bonuses if they stay with their new parent, Wachovia Corp., according to a memo sent to the 6,618 brokers.

A broker who produces $1 million in gross revenue, for example, is eligible for a $1 million bonus -- a base retention award of $700,000 and an incentive award based on continuing performance of $300,000. A broker who produces $500,000 is eligible for a $400,000 bonus -- a base award of $300,000 and an incentive of $100,000. At the $100,000 level, a broker can get a $20,000 base award but no incentive.

http://www.bizjournals.com/stlouis/stor ... .html?hbx=

The aquisition is getting even more expensive.... A few more millionaires in this town wouldn't be a bad thing.

arch city · PostJun 26, 2007#1632007-06-26T01:28+00:00

^Nice incentives, but what's the catch?

moorlander · PostJun 26, 2007#1642007-06-26T01:59+00:00

I think the brokers are the catch... Wachovia wants to make sure they retain AGE's top talent... Sounds too good to be true though doesn't it...

datawhse · PostAug 28, 2007#1652007-08-28T20:01+00:00

Sounds like there will be some new residents to the st. Louis area very soon....

http://www.timesdispatch.com/cva/ric/li ... -0142.html

It means employees will be told when their jobs end here, he said. Some will be offered incentives to stay until the end date. "A few hundred will be asked to transfer."

matt · PostAug 28, 2007#1662007-08-28T20:07+00:00

Another ugly story about a real estate agent steering buyers appeared in last Saturday's paper. Their Realtor wanted them to live in the CWE and they had to fight to see a house in Benton Park.

Maybe someone should be sending a message out to the Wachovia newcomers about the hot St. Louis neighborhood housing market?

And maybe someone should be sending a message out to real estate agents that it is illegal to steer?

dweebe · PostAug 28, 2007#1672007-08-28T20:13+00:00

Matt wrote:Another ugly story about a real estate agent steering buyers appeared in last Saturday's paper. Their Realtor wanted them to live in the CWE and they had to fight to see a house in Benton Park.

Maybe someone should be sending a message out to the Wachovia newcomers about the hot St. Louis neighborhood housing market?

And maybe someone should be sending a message out to real estate agents that it is illegal to steer?

link please. A search on stltoday.com turned up nothing.

southsidepride · PostAug 28, 2007#1682007-08-28T21:38+00:00

Matt wrote:Another ugly story about a real estate agent steering buyers appeared in last Saturday's paper. Their Realtor wanted them to live in the CWE and they had to fight to see a house in Benton Park.

Maybe someone should be sending a message out to the Wachovia newcomers about the hot St. Louis neighborhood housing market?

And maybe someone should be sending a message out to real estate agents that it is illegal to steer?

hey that shows you how far the city has come in the past decade or so. 10 yrs. ago if a buyer wanted the CWE the realtor would have tried to steer them to West County!

Hopefully in another decade Benton Park will be the one the realtor is pushing and Hyde Park will be the neighborhood the buyer has to push for

thewayofthearch · PostAug 29, 2007#1692007-08-29T03:05+00:00

loftlover wrote:On a lighter note, not sure I like the sound of the "Wachovia Dome", but it rolls off the tongue better than the "Edward Jones Dome" ...

"Wachovia Field at Edwards Jones' Dome of America's Center on the Landing "

aka: WaFEDACkeL

stlterp · PostAug 29, 2007#1702007-08-29T03:45+00:00

TheWayoftheArch wrote:
loftlover wrote:On a lighter note, not sure I like the sound of the "Wachovia Dome", but it rolls off the tongue better than the "Edward Jones Dome" ...

"Wachovia Field at Edwards Jones' Dome of America's Center on the Landing "

aka: WaFEDACkeL

How does Wachovia buying AGE have anything to do with Edward Jones and the name on the dome???

I actually think Wachovia has their name on an arena somewhere, maybe Philly?

threeonefour · PostAug 29, 2007#1712007-08-29T04:08+00:00

stlterp wrote:I actually think Wachovia has their name on an arena somewhere, maybe Philly?

Yep. The NHL Flyers and NBA 76ers play at the Wachovia Center.

framer · PostAug 29, 2007#1722007-08-29T05:01+00:00

Wow! Richmond is losing 2000 jobs out of the 2600 that are there now. That's a huge hit. Their loss is our gain, I guess.

matt · PostAug 29, 2007#1732007-08-29T16:37+00:00

It was one of those At Home With features:

http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/lifest ... enDocument

dina · PostAug 30, 2007#1742007-08-30T01:48+00:00

Framer wrote:Wow! Richmond is losing 2000 jobs out of the 2600 that are there now. That's a huge hit. Their loss is our gain, I guess.

No, not really. I have 3 friends at Edward Jones living week to week, worrying when they will get the ax because Wachovia will bring in their people from Richmond to replace them.

The same thing happened to my brother an architect at May Co.

Macy's have their own architects that replaced the ones at May Co. A "merger" is never good for the company being bought out and their employees and families.

Alex Ihnen · PostAug 30, 2007#1752007-08-30T02:03+00:00

Matt wrote:It was one of those At Home With features:

http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/lifest ... enDocument

Not surprising. A colleague moving from Conecticut was directed towards Creve Coeur and away from Kirkwood, Webster Groves and the City.

Wells Fargo Advisors (formerly Wachovia/AG Edwards)

Choose Display Mode